Fetal biometry: how well can offline measurements from three-dimensional volumes substitute real-time two-dimensional measurements?
- PMID: 23335102
- DOI: 10.1002/uog.12410
Fetal biometry: how well can offline measurements from three-dimensional volumes substitute real-time two-dimensional measurements?
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the feasibility, accuracy and reproducibility of manipulating three-dimensional (3D) volume sets in order to reconstruct optimal two-dimensional (2D) planes for fetal biometry throughout gestation and compare them with those derived from real-time 2D scanning.
Methods: Sixty-five fetuses were evaluated at a gestational age of 14-41 weeks. For each fetus a duplicate set of seven standard fetal measurements was taken by an experienced operator using 2D ultrasound and then 20 intentionally suboptimal 3D volumes from different predefined angles were captured and stored. These were manipulated and measured. The time taken to complete a full scan, with both 2D and 3D ultrasound, was recorded. All measurement differences were expressed as gestational age-specific Z-scores. For all comparisons Bland-Altman plots were used and limits of agreement were calculated. The means and variances of the measurements were tested with a paired t-test and Pitman's test for differences in variance, respectively. The difference between the time taken to perform a 2D and a 3D scan was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test.
Results: Mean agreement between 2D and 3D ultrasound measurements was good, with no statistically significant differences (i.e. no systematic error) unless the head was facing anteroposteriorly, or the long axis of the femur was at 60-90° to the transducer. The variance (random error) for 3D measurements was similar to that for 2D measurements. Planes from some volumes could not be extracted (7% for head circumference, 9% for abdominal circumference and 11% for femur length). The median time required to perform a full fetal biometric scan was significantly higher for 3D than for 2D (3:04 min vs 1:57 min, respectively; P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Fetal measurements derived from 3D volume acquisitions exhibited good agreement with those obtained by real-time 2D scanning, with no extra systematic or random error. However, they were slower to obtain, not all volumes were amenable to extraction of planes and measurements that came from a head facing anteroposteriorly or that were obtained with the long axis of the femur at 60-90° to the transducer were systematically smaller.
Keywords: 3D; error; feasibility; fetal biometry; reproducibility.
Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Optimization of Fetal Biometry With 3D Ultrasound and Image Recognition (EPICEA): protocol for a prospective cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 15;9(12):e031777. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031777. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 31843832 Free PMC article.
-
Fetal biometry by an inexperienced operator using two- and three-dimensional ultrasound.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 May;35(5):566-71. doi: 10.1002/uog.7600. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010. PMID: 20183864
-
Volumetric (3D) imaging reduces inter- and intraobserver variation of fetal biometry measurements.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;33(4):447-52. doi: 10.1002/uog.6321. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19277977
-
Nontraditional sonographic pearls in estimating gestational age.Semin Perinatol. 2008 Jun;32(3):154-60. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2008.02.003. Semin Perinatol. 2008. PMID: 18482614 Review.
-
Fetal biometry to assess the size and growth of the fetus.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 May;49:3-15. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.02.005. Epub 2018 Feb 23. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018. PMID: 29605157 Review.
Cited by
-
Ultrasound Quality Assurance for Singletons in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Growth Studies.J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Aug;35(8):1725-33. doi: 10.7863/ultra.15.09087. Epub 2016 Jun 27. J Ultrasound Med. 2016. PMID: 27353072 Free PMC article.
-
A Clinical Approach to Semiautomated Three-Dimensional Fetal Brain Biometry-Comparing the Strengths and Weaknesses of Two Diagnostic Tools: 5DCNS+TM and SonoCNSTM.J Clin Med. 2023 Aug 16;12(16):5334. doi: 10.3390/jcm12165334. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 37629375 Free PMC article.
-
Three-Dimensional Volume Ultrasound Assessment of Cesarean Scar Niche and Cervix in Pregnant Women: A Reproducibility Study.J Ultrasound Med. 2025 Mar;44(3):509-519. doi: 10.1002/jum.16613. Epub 2024 Nov 7. J Ultrasound Med. 2025. PMID: 39508476 Free PMC article.
-
Optimization of Fetal Biometry With 3D Ultrasound and Image Recognition (EPICEA): protocol for a prospective cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 15;9(12):e031777. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031777. BMJ Open. 2019. PMID: 31843832 Free PMC article.
-
A comparison of standard two-dimensional ultrasound to three-dimensional volume sonography for routine second-trimester fetal imaging.J Perinatol. 2017 Apr;37(4):380-386. doi: 10.1038/jp.2016.212. Epub 2017 Jan 26. J Perinatol. 2017. PMID: 28125099
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical